the house as later -- is in session later this month. enjoy the rest of your sunday and have a great weekend. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . . solu

need an international approach. host: let's take a step back, where is yemen and what are those conditions? guest: it's at the bottom of the peninsula next to saudia arabia. they have problems that come together at the same time. they have a problem with the economy where they are quickly running out of money, and out of oil, and 80% of their income comes from oil. and they are running out of water, which is worse. it's estimated that the capital will be the first in history to run out of water and go dry. and the population is set to and the population is set to double in 20 ars and they

have poverty. and corruption and inflation, and then you have security challenges. the al-qaeda and having civil war in the north and obsession movement in the south. so all of these challenges are coming together and there is a fear this will overwhelm yemen. host: as far as al-qaeda, why do they pick yemen to operate? guest: there are many reasons, because the government doesn't have control over all the country. and it's in these ungoverned sources that al-qaeda will seek safe refuge, and that's what is happening. host: the numbers are on the bottom of the screen, we are talking to christopher boucek about yemen and what is being

done. how does yemen get on with its neighbors now? guest: yemen has well-developed relations with the gulf countries. with the relationship with saudia arabia is one that is recently become more difficult because of the security situation in yemen. i think that the saudi's look at what is going in yemen and see this as a source of the problems in their country. there are a number of event that is took place in yemen that had a negative effect on saudia arabia with suicide attempts and there was an attack to the security chief. and the war in the north between the government and

shiite rebels and has been going on for years and now the saudis are reactant. host: bring this to the u.s., what has the yemen government been doing with the u.s. to fight that activity? guest: the last couple of weeks we have seen a number of strikes against the targets. and this the yemen government and american government cooperating. and this is important for the targeting and surveillance. while the yemen government was responsible for the military operations. there was a raid on the 17th of a raid in the south and arrest in the capital and operations outside of that area. and there was an air strike attempt and a house target on

f.b.i. wanted list. this attack >> up next, live at "newsmakers" said with reporters pam hess and tim starks. then that the debate on health care. that will be followed by president obama. >> you have lost it. you do not own it anymore. you are trespassing. and that hurts. my possessions are an hour and a storage bin. what i was able to get out before the house was locked up. >> this week, who was later coburn on american casino,

thereir documentary on the subprime mortgages. >> joining us on "newsmakers" is tim starks and pam hess, intelligence reporter with the associated press. the subjects of the closure of the embassy in yemen. >> the u.s. embassy was attacked twice in a very directly with suicide bombers in 2008. 17 yemnis died, outside the perimeter of the embassy. with the attack in december that the u.s. apparently participated in, and the stepped-up counter-

terror 8 that the u.s. is providing to yemen and the special forces in yemen, it is creating a situation that is not the safest for diplomats. i think they're expecting al qaeda to strike back. host: you are appearing on fox, and abc. when news came out of this? guest: we had and administration officials saying on the record saying they are still interested in sending the guantanamo detainees to yemen. there was special confidence in some of the officials -- janet napolitano, dhs secretary. they had trouble explaining why the suspect was going to be treated as a criminal suspect as opposed to an enemy combatants. he did not explain why it not an enemy combatants.

host: we will listen to what his comments were. on the decision by the state department to close the embassy in yemen. john brennan's response this morning. guest: there indications that they are targeting our embassy and our personnel. we will not take chances with the lives of our diplomats and others overseas. we made a decision overnight. i spoke with ambassador sessions last night and this morning to make sure we are doing everything possible to protect diplomats there. we are working closely with yemenis. we will not take chances. >> you had indications, intelligence that they might try to explode a bomb or attacked the embassy? >> al qaeda has been trying to carry out attacks over the past month. in november, 2008, there were trying. there are a number of operatives determined to carry out such

attacks. we will not let that happen. if we have to close the embassy to insure we get optimal security, we will do that. >> are u.s. citizens in yemen in danger? >> the embassy has a warning system so that other u.s. citizens in country are notified. we are doing everything possible to make sure all u.s. citizens as well as it was the andye yems inis are protected. >> are u.s. citizens in danger in that country? >> until the government gets on top of the situation, there is a risk of attacks. a number of tourists have been kidnapped and killed. we're ye enclosedm lee with -- e closely with the yemeni government. host: they are looking at what is happening in detroit.

guest: general petraeus is elevated and is in charge of all u.s. military operations in the middle east. for the last eight months, they have been talking about yemen as the new front were they think some al qaeda leaders are calling. there is a vast on government territory in the northern desert area, and it has complicated attempts by the government to go after al qaeda. it is complicated by shiite engines 8 -- insurgency along that border it. the u.s. military is providing counter terror training and operations through joint special operations command to go after al qaeda there. the u.s. is constantly pressuring yemen to focus on the al qaeda problem rather than the shiite insurgency. host: to you agree with that? guest: yes.

we're hearing about lawlessness in the country, lack of any control of the government in yemen. and also a country that has abject poverty -- 35% unemployment rate and a significant drop in its oil revenue. what is interesting is that if you look good some of the testimony from top intelligence officials before congress earlier this year, when there was discussion about the domestic threat here, and in addition to some of the very early briefings to congress about the overall intelligence picture, there was a lot of discussion about how countries like yemen, somali, countries that have become ungovernable have -- are going to start becoming the new fraud. now it looks like it is very much shifting their way and it is happening. host: more i niemen it been

another front and the war on terror from john brennan. >> this is the continuation of an effort we have had under way since the beginning of this administration. general petraeus is an out to yemen several times. i spoke to him yesterday after he met with the president were having an ongoing dialogue with their government. we have had close consultations with the british. i spoke with them last night about the types of things we can do together in support of their government. this is a concerted effort. we will that al qaeda continue to make gains in the yemen. we will do what we can to protect our citizens there and abroad. host: what are the differences between afghanistan and yemen? guest: geography. afghanistan has incredibly difficult geography with caves for many people to hide. with secret passes through these mountains that the u.s. does not

know. it is hard. we have a lot of u.s. troops there and the pakistani government increasingly pressuring that area. in yemen, we do not have many u.s. troops. there is not indication that we will be deploying troops there. but you have an area that is governed like pakistan and afghanistan by tribes who are very insular and do not recognize the power of government imposed over them, or who are giving safe harbor to a couple of hundred al qaeda operatives. and they are al qaeda camps operating there. it is a different fight to graphically. it is a different fight because there is less firepower on the u.s. side then there is in afghanistan and pakistan. in some ways, it is easier, but in other ways it is harder. host: how we gain intelligence within the country and how we know who to trust. guest: 1 advantage that the u.s.

might have been yemen it is that we are not installing a government. the yemen government is perceived by u.s. officials as friendly. the problem is that they do not have the resources they need in order to have as much strong intelligence is the need to attacked al qaeda, according to officials that have spoken on this. they have spoken of speaking -- increasing military aid. journal petraeus talked about adult -- doubling that military aid. there is a talk about doubling their $two14-- that to $140 mil. so that they can give us the intelligence we need. and we can give them more security assurances. if we have more guantanamo suspects there, but they have the way of keeping those people from going back onto the battlefield. host: let me go back to, trying to decipher the news coming out

of john brennan. he was the only administration official on the sunday programs. last week we heard from robert gibbs and janet napolitano. she was not on the sunday shows. do you read anything into that. guest: there are two parts to that. janet napolitano had come under fire for some of our remarks that might make sense to remove her from the spotlight on a little bit. he is the person who is a top official dealing with this in the white house. he makes sense to be on the sunday programs, especially because one of the major criticisms coming out of this is we do not have a unified effort. there is not information sharing. if you have one public face of this, it makes sense that this is the person to send a message that we are looking at coordinating this. host: can you explain the difference between an enemy combat curses a criminal suspect? guest: enemy combat and it is 8

legal construct created during the bush administration. -- enemy combatant is a legal constructs created during the bush administration and were you do not have evidence that could stand up and u.s. court. the basic difference between someone would put in a military commission and someone in the u.s. criminal justice is evidence. evidence that is collected by intelligence officials or the military is not evidence that can be held up in a u.s. court, because you cannot be sure that it was not -- it was handled in in a proper way. in civilian courts, cases get thrown out all the time because of compromise evidence. -- compromised evidence. the enemy combatants, when they go through a military court, they have not been very successful so far -- there have

been three that have been depleted out -- you have evidence that is based on hearsay and was not collected in a proper way, the reason they are doing it in civilian court is because she was on u.s. soil and the evidence they have against them is something that would hold up in court. the u.s. government opposed the current stance and possibly even during the bush should ministration is that the prime place you want to get these people is in civilian court because then you can send them to jail and you can show the government is doing something against them. the enemy combatants structure we set up with military commissions has not been that successful. they are trying to create a legal system of whole cloth to deal with a legally constructed new criminal -- it is proven to be extremely difficult. the obama administration wants to push them into a civilian

court. >> we have an array of tools that we will use, and we want to make sure we want to -- we maintain flexibility. let's get the facts on the table. he was arrested on u.s. soil, on a playing in detroit airport. he was talking to people who were detaining him. there were people who were arrested during the previous administration, richard reid, the issue bomber, -- the shoe bomber, all of which were tried in criminal court and sentenced. just because a person is born to be put into the criminal legal process, it does not mean that we have -- we do not have other opportunities to get information from them. >> after he loitered up, did he stopped talking? >>-- after he lawyered up, did he stop talking? >> we got information.

as you talk with the lawyers and individuals, as they recognize what they are facing as the charges, conviction and possible sentence, there are opportunities to talk about it. the fbi has some of the best interrogators in the world. i am confident it -- confident we can work the system to cut his miranda rights. he does not have to speak at all. >> there are certain things on the table. if he wants to engage with us and a productive manner, there are ways he can do that. >> why not treat him? you have the right to treat him as an enemy combatants? why not do that if he has more legible intelligence about the future attacks, doesn't the president had an opportunity to irresponsibility to do everything legal he can -- have a responsibility to do everything legal he can? >> in this instance, we felt the

best way to address his case -- we will continue to look at each case individually and proceed accordingly. host: tim starks, as this story starts to percolate in the papers tomorrow, how will his comments be received are republicans? guest: they are already upset that they are not putting him in the enemy combat system. -- enemy combatant system. he explained why he put them in the civilian courts. he did not explain why not the enemy combat and kansant. there are arguments for putting him, labeling him as an enemy combatants. there is going to be a lot of back-and-forth over that. you will see a lot of republicans saying that that would have been the way to go. host: you were the president talk about this in his saturday address, referring in directly to the comments by former vice

president cheney last week. guest: cheney has continued to be the republican attack dog. i think they are staking out that most extreme position against the obama administration, allowing republicans to sort of strike a middle ground. kit bond in an interesting turn this morning. he is usually pretty bipartisan. on fox news, taking that middle ground, saying we would like to see more being done. we are not calling a's h janet napolitanoead-- janet napolitano's head. people keep picking up the elements. john brennan, a longtime cia analyst. she was in an drumheadst of the nttc. he is the head of the homeland security council. he is a guy with a lot of

government background. he was briefly in charge of the analysis corp., which did some work on the terrorist and watch list. the announcement that goes into who goes on the terrorist watch list. he did a500, running00 -- why t move from the 500,000 list that would have gotten an additional security checks. host: did security work on christmas day? here is an excerpt from that program. >> the system did work on that day -- because he did not -- he should never have gotten on that plane with those explosives. the system did not work. we were able to award other attacks. -- a we weretw able to -- we

were able to thwart other attacks. we want to make sure we put together pieces of information that allows us to stop every single terrorist out there. >> this seems to be a big issue in terms of how certain things could have happened. many americans remember the way the unabomber was brought to justice. when a family member says, i am worried. that should be a red flag. his father, a nigerian businessman, close to the u.s. embassy and says, my son went to yemen. i am worried. he has become more radical. that does not shoot to the top of warning signs for u.s. intelligence. why not? >> every day there are people who bring to our attention concerns about family members or others who have joined the ranks of extremists. those five guys from virginia, their families broadest retreat brought them to our attention.

his father -- their families and brought them to our attention. the failure in the system is that we did not take the information the father gave us and connected to other information we got your intelligence systems. we were able to bring to bear all those disparate bits and pieces in a way to allow us to identify the individuals. they did not give us the clarity we needed to know who the individual was there were using. we need to make sure this never happens again. host: that from john brennan on a sunday morning programs. on tuesday the president will hold a meeting that would include john brennan, homeland security secretary and other members of his homeland security team. what questions do think he will be asking? what questions did john brennan not answer today?

>> the first step is to get preliminary findings. there is no reporting out there right now about what the evaluation is. the next step is going to be what are the recommendations for fixing this? what we have to do to correct this system of people accountable within the administration? as far as john browning, i would go back to the one question that he did not answer that i think would be to the satisfaction of everyone. it was a why not label him an enemy combat? i think there would be dissatisfaction with some of his answers. for instance, about the idea of we might still send people to get in from -- yemen from guantanamo. host: the other issues that came up on the nbc program, that of privacy and civil rights. these full body scanners that

are used in about a dozen airports that could become standard everywhere. >> if you have seen at the images that have come out of these things, they are quite detailed. i am not sure that i would want to go through them. already of the things that will have to happen in the next few months and it might come up at the white house is what is a threshold? there are too broke threshold's. one -- how much of our privacy and our civil liberties are we able to trade in it to get safer? knowing it will never be one of a% say firm -- 100% perfect. will they send all luster body scanning machines? what are willing to give up to increase security? will they send all -- will they sent all of us that her body scanning machines? the next crest role they will

look at th -- the next threshold that we will look at is will they make that database a smaller list of names? it is not so much that there was a systemic failure, but rather as human failure and linking the information we had together. there are 500,000 people on this list. the question is going to be, what is the threshold that you start moving in the amount of information off of a larger list and on to smaller lists? this was pointed out to me yesterday in a conversation, the only complaint we have heard about the watch list is from people saying that it is too big. you are stopping me in the airport when i have no security problems whatsoever. the answer these days might be,

we will have to stop more people. no one has ever complained that the terrorist list is too small. there is going to be a debate coming up. i do not know which way will go. i do not know what the american public's tolerance is for additional security at airports this may come up. there is no doubt that this guy should have been scanned. we have also barred from people who know where these, how he supported these explosives. it is possible it would not have shown up on a body scan. host: here is how the issue of false"me on -- unfolded on "meet the press." >> i think there is a way to maintain privacy and provide security. we are trying to strike the balance. we're looking at the practices we use. there has to be a healthy

balance, to maintain privacy standards and do everything possible-- >> body scanners? >> that is something we are looking at carefully. at the amsterdam airport, there were full body scanners and place. there were not used for the airline that was coming to united states. those needs to be part of the package. >> what these scanners and p detectetn the level of which eight detected the level of -- detected the level of petn? >> i think it would. host: that issue is something that libertarians will be aiming for. >> there was a vote in congress to limit the use of body scanners earlier this year. that is the way everyone was looking then. now there